Hooters liquor license

Anyone who attended this or the previous hearing regarding Hooters is well aware that it was a done deal. Public opinion against remains as heavy now as ever. However, if the city didn't respond when the hall was overflowing, why expect anything different?

There were way more than four people in opposition who did not choose to speak but filled out opinion cards. At no time did I see the hearing officer Marjan Behzadi look at those cards before rendering her decision.

The arguments against were substantially more valid, to the point of a round of applause for issues raised and backed by research, regarding the detrimental effects on neighborhoods when establishments like Hooters sell hard liquor.

The pro side provided inane statements from law enforcement like "There is no difference between hard liquor and beer and wine," (so why a separate license)? "We get few calls from Hooters with the limited license, and a lot of calls from places with hard liquor licenses" (therefore, lets give Hooters a hard liquor license). Damning logic indeed.

Or 11 other establishments serve hard liquor within a hald-mile of Hooters (do we really need another)!

Is anyone concerned with the welfare of our city? Just what is the plan for Thousand Oaks? We need to know. We need to agree.